[Chapter-delegates] Multistakeholder governance - ISOC - and city-TLDs

Thu Jun 27 09:34:20 PDT 2013

Thomas,

ISOC needs to stay away as much as possible from the day-to-day fray of TLD efforts. We need ISOC to be able to act and be recognized as a though leader on the Internet, as a standard-bearer for principles and values fundamental to the Internet, a forum where ideas and debate flow freely, and an honest broker.

The allocation of .org to PIR was based on the existence of a significant barrier between ISOC as all of the above and PIR as an operator of the TLD and therefore as an active participant in domain-name policy development. We have put pressure on them to be exemplary (so for example .org runs DNSSEC, was the first to put in measures to stop domain tasting and kiting, etc.)

The present involvement of PIR in the new-gTLDs process runs along the same lines, to the best of my knowledge.

That way ISOC is - as much as possible - not in competition with its own members, as Konstantinos has also very clearly explained. You are the best example why this must continue to be so: you lead the effort behind a new TLD, .nyc, which belongs to a problematic new class of TLDs, city-bound TLDs, which explore the dangerous space between generic and geographic and have the GAC on edge since well before day zero of your arrival to this environment (which I remember well.) 

As chapters we may go deep - like you move for ISOC-NY to do - into our local environments, even into TLD policy and conflict. When we do so we must leave ISOC as the space where general policy can be discussed and we as individuals, chapters, and ISOC global go in separately into different fora with, hopefully, coherent while still independent views and positions.

In the case you present (multistakeholder governance for cities) I see both your particular effort behind .nyc and what could be a general subject of interest for ISOC. Let's keep the two spaces clearly in mind lest one be undermined by an accusation of being hijacked by, or for, the other.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty
- -
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty

Facultad de Química UNAM 

Av.
 Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

+52-1-5541444475
 FROM ABROAD 
+525541444475
 DESDE MÉXICO SMS
 +525541444475 

Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty

Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty

---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 

Desde: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org [chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Thomas Lowenhaupt [toml at communisphere.com]

Enviado el: jueves, 27 de junio de 2013 11:08

Hasta: Konstantinos Komaitis

CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates

Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Multistakeholder governance - ISOC - and city-TLDs

Konstantinos,

I've observed that ISOC does not involve itself with TLD efforts.  But it is an education and research oriented Society. Fact based. Why would it exclude itself from engagement in exploring, for example, the use of the multistakeholder model's usage in cities?
 ISOC supports the multistakeholder model. While endorsing MSM for cities might currently be off track, encouraging research, exploration, communication, and a dialogue about its utility seems in line with ISOC's strategic and directional values. Maybe its
 right for some cities and not for others? Perhaps it is effective in the planning phase but not the operational? Maybe there's a tweak appropriate for cities? Maybe cities over 3,000,000 population can benefit? Perhaps city TLDs should be used to advance regionalization?

So that I might understand possible barriers to ISOC involvement in this area, perhaps you can help me understand why "the Internet Society has not gotten involved in TLD efforts" historically.

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt

On 6/27/2013 10:07 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

Dear Thomas

many thanks for your email and apologies for the delay in responding -- I have been on various meetings and I am now catching up on emails.

As you know, the Internet Society has been following the discussions on new gTLDs, having participated at the various ICANN meetings. Our engagement is more on a strategic and directional level. Historically, the Internet Society has not gotten involved in TLD efforts, so as not to preclude chapter members from engaging in such activities either through the ICANN structures or by running a ccTLD, as a separate entity or organisation. In particular, ISOC does not get involved in their business or policy decisions, nor has the Internet Society any strategy for Chapters to get involved in ccTLDs or for ccTLDs becoming more directly engaged with ISOC as an entity. The same thinking applies with respect to new gTLDs.  Therefore, our approach is of an observing  partner rather than becoming directly involved in TLD issues pursued by ISOC Chapters.

I hope this helps.

Best regards

Konstantinos

Konstantinos Komaitis
Policy Advisor,
Internet Society
komaitis at isoc.org
tel: +41 22 807 1453

On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:53 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml at communisphere.com> wrote:

Konstantinos,
Paul Brigner suggested I contact you about generating a discussion on the appropriateness of the multistakeholder governance for city-TLDs.
By way of introduction, my involvement with city-TLDs, or more specifically the .nyc TLD, began in 2001 when a governance body on which I was serving resolved that the city should acquire and develop the .nyc TLD as a public interest resource. Jump 12 years to yesterday's Future of Internet Governance conference at Columbia University and a question I asked of the NTIA's Larry Strickling about the appropriateness of multistakeholder governance for city-TLDs. Larry'd just completed a speech in which he reiterated the U.S.'s support for MSG, and answered my query by indicating NTIA was extending MSG to the .us TLD and that it seemed appropriate for city TLDs as well.
During Paul's regular weekly teleconference today, I brought up the prospect of ISOC sponsoring a cross-city discussion about MSG. Paul suggested that you might have thoughts on the matter and that I connect. My thinking is:
	• 38 cities have applied for TLDs. 16 of these have ISOC chapters. 
	• that cities are developing their TLD in silos - no sharing or learning taking place
	• (my hunch is that city administrations are not aware of the difference between standard TLDs where more names sold = success and community TLDs where public benefit is the measure.)
	• to my knowledge, the public is not involved with TLD planning, governance or best practice development in any cities 
	• MSG might be an appropriate model for cities
My hope is that we can bring a group of ISOC members from applicant cities together - initially on a Hangout or similar venue - to discuss extant public engagement in their cities, looking toward a more extensive sharing and development endeavor. 
I heard yesterday that key name allocation actions were to take place in my city (New York) in October. It's my belief that at that point, if things proceed as they are now inclined, the public interest benefits of our TLD will be severely diminished, to the detriment of Internet users and the city as a whole. 

I'd like to discuss the prospect of bringing ISOC members from city-TLD applicants together to discuss MSG, perhaps as soon as next Friday.

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt

----------------------------------------------- 
Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair
Connecting.nyc Inc.

tom at connectingnyc.org
Jackson Hts., NYC 11372
718 639 4222

Blog - Wiki - Web 